Maarten de Zeeuw, in his freely available 5-part publication "Another
Look at the Traxler Gambit" from New in Chess has suggested 6 possible refutations for the Traxler Gambit
The refutations can be found in Mr. de Zeeuw's 5th publication above, on the last page under the heading
"Summary".
[The following analysis is a work in progress. The purpose is to continue
to develop skills analyzing positions with a computer.]
I have the highest respect for Mr. de Zeeuw. Here is my take on
his 6 refutations. In all cases, I think that he needs to re-examine his analysis after considering the following:
Traxler analysis
7-27-2006 JLJ
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5
de Zeeuw Refutation number 1:
5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.d3 dxc4 9.Kxf2 Bg4 10.Qe1 and
now: Nb4 (or Nd4, de Zeeuw considered only cxd3) 11.Na3 cxd3 12.Kg1 Nxc2 13.Nxc2 dxc2 14.h3 Bd1 =
Black may have better 8th moves (thanks Richard for pointing this out):
24-ply search:
1. (-0.56): 8...Bh4 9.Bb5 Bg4 10.Qd2 0-0-0 11.h3 Qc5 12.Qe3 d4 13.Qd2 Qxb5 14.Na3 Qa6 15.hxg4
2. (-0.25): 8...Bg4 9.Qd2 Bc5 10.exd5 Nh5 11.Qg5 Qf8+ 12.Bf4 Nxf4 13.Qxg4 Nxd5+ 14.Qf3 Ne3+ 15.Ke1
de Zeeuw Refutation number 2:
5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Bh4 10.d6 Qxd6 11.Nf7 Qc5 12.Na3
(de Zeeuw thinks white is winning) and now we continue e4 white has:
2A 13.g4 Be6 14.Bxe6 Nxe6 -0.35
2B 13.g3 Bxg3 14.Kg2 b5 Black advantage
de Zeeuw Refutation number 3:
5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.Be2 Bh4 10.c3 Nxe2 11.Qxe2 Bg4 12.Qb5
Nd7 13.Kg1 Qf6 (or 13...0-0-0 14.h3 Qf6 15.Qf1 Bf5 = instead of 15...Qxf1) 14.Qf1 and now: Qb6+ 15.d4 (forced) 0-0-0
scored -0.36/26 with attack
Note - what is being questioned here is de Zeeuw's 13.Kg1 line.
de Zeeuw Refutation number 4 has 4 lines 4A 4B 4C and 4D:
Refutation 4A
4A 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8
d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.d6 Qxd6 10.d3 Bg4 11.Nf7 and now Qb6! 12. Qd2 Be2+ 13. Kxf2 Ng4+ 14. Ke1 Qf6 15. Qxe2 Nxe2 16. Kxe2 (16. Rf1
Nf4) 16... Qf2+ 17. Kd1 Qxg2 18. Re1 Nf2+ 19. Kd2 (19. Ke2 draw by perpetual check) 19...Ne4+ 20.Ke3 Qf2+ 21.Kxe4 Qxe1+ 22.Be3
Qh4+ amazing draw by perpetual check where the Black Queen takes on 4 minor pieces
Refutation 4B
4B 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.d6 Qxd6 10.c3 Bg4 11.Nf7 and now
Qd7 12.Nxe5 Qf5 13.Be6 (13.Bd3 Qf4 14.Nf3 Nxf3 15.Qe2+ Kf8 16.Qxf2 Rd8 17.g2 (17.Be2 Ne4 -2.40) Bh3+ 18.Ke2 Ng1+ -2.06) Qxe6
14.Nxg4 Nxg4 15.cxd4 0-0-0 16.Qe2 Qd7 17.Nc3 Rf8 18.d5 Bb6+ 19.Ke1 Re8 20.Ne4 Nf6 21.d3 Qxd5 22.Be3 Nxe4 23.Bxb6 axb6 24.Kd1
Nc3+ 25.bxc3 Rxe2 26.Kxe2 Qxg2+ -1.40
Note: if 11.Qa4+ Nd7 12.Kxf2 Qf6+ 13.Ke1 0-0-0 is scored 0.00 after a deep search, for example: a) 14.Nf7 Nb6 15.Nxd8
Nxa4 or b) 14.Rf1 Qh4+ 15.Rf2 Qxh2
Refutation 4C
4C 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9. d6 Qxd6 10. Nf7 and now Qe7
7 white responses are examined:
4C1. 11. d3 Bg4 (11... Bh4 12. Nc3 b5 13. Nxb5
Bg4 14. Nxd4 Bxd1
15. Nf5) (11... Ng4 12. Nc3) 12. Qd2 Bh4 (12... Be2+) 13. Nc3 (13. Qe3 Be2+ 14.
Qxe2 Nxe2 15. Kxe2
b5 {-0.27}) 13... b5 (13... Nd5 14. Nxd5 Qxf7+ 15. Nf4 Qxf4+
16. Qxf4 exf4) 14. Nxe5 O-O-O 15. Nf3 Nxf3 16. Qe3 Re8 (16...
Qxe3 17. Bxe3
bxc4 18. h3) 17. Qxe7 Rxe7 18. Bf4 bxc4 {0.00} 19. h3 Bh5 (19... g5) 20. gxf3)
4C2. 11. Ng5 Bg4 12. Nf3 e4 (12... Bh4) 13. Kxf2 (13. h3 exf3 14. hxg4 fxg2+
15. Kxg2 Qe4+ 16. Kxf2 Nxg4+ 17. Kg1 Nf3+ 18. Kf1Nfh2+ 19. Kg1 0.00 perpetual check) (13. Be2 exf3 14. gxf3 Bh4 15. fxg4 O-O-O
16. d3 -2.07) 13... O-O-O -0.19 (13... exf3 14. Re1 Ne4+ 15. Rxe4 Qxe4) 14. Re1 (14. Nxd4 Bxd1 15. c3 0.00) 14... Qd6 15.
Re3 Bxf3 -1.58
4C3. 11. Nxe5 Qxe5 12. c3 (12. d3 Bh4 13. Qd2 -1.26) 12... Bg4 13. cxd4 Qf5 14.
Be2 Bh4+ 15. Bf3 O-O-O 16. Kg1 -2.16 (16. h3 Qd3+ -3.06)
4C4. 11. c3 Bg4 12. Qa4+ Nd7 13. cxd4 (13. Kxf2 Qh4+ {white has Kf1, Ke3 both lead
to p.chk 0.00}) 13... Bxd4 (13... Qf6 14. Nd6+ cxd6 15. dxe5 Qxe5 p.ch 0.00) 14. Ke1 Qf6 15. Rf1 Qh4+ 16. g3 Qxh2 17. Qa3
Qg2 18. Ng5 O-O-O 19. Nf3 -0.38
4C5. 11. h3 Bh4 (11... Qc5 12. Na3 Nf5 13. g4 Ng3+ 14.Kg2 Nxh1 15. Qf3 e4) 12.
c3 (12. g3 Bxg3 13. Ng5 Qd7 0.00) (12. Nc3 Nh5 0.00) 12... Nf5 13. Nxe5 (13. Qb3 Qc5 14. Qb5+ Qxb5 15. Bxb5+ Kxf7 16. Rg1
0.08) (13. Na3 Ne4 14. d3 Qf6 0.00) 13... Qxe5 14. d4 Qe7 0.00
4C6. 11. Kxf2 Ng4+ 12. Ke1 Qf6 13. Rf1 Qh4+ 14. g3 Qxh2 15. d3 0.00
4C7. 11. b3 Bg4 12. Ba3 Qd7 13. Nxe5 Qf5 -1.54
Refutation 4D
4D 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9. d6 cxd6 10.Kxf2 d5 11.Be2 Ne4+ 12.Kg1 Qc5 and now de Zeeuw has 2 lines:
4D1. 13.Kf1 Qf8+ 14.Bf3 Bg4 15.d3 Nxf3 16.gxf3 Bxf3 17.Qe1 Bxh1+ 18.Kg1 Qf3 19.Qf1 Qxf1 20.Kxf1 Nd6 0.00 equal, the white
knight falls
4D2. 13.Bh5+ Ke7 14.Kf1 Be6 15.b4 (15.Nf7 or 15.b3 don't work either) Rf8+ 16.Bf7 or Nf7 and now Qb6 with Black advantage
Note - it is only de Zeeuw's 11.Be2 line that is questioned here. It looks like white gets a nice position after 11.c3.
After 11.c3, Richard suggests:
11.c3 Ng4+ 12.Ke1 Qf6 13.Bb5+ Ke7 14.Rf1 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qxh2 16.Rf7+ Kd6
17.cxd4 Qxg3+ 18.Ke2 Nf6 19.Bd7 Bxd7 20.Rxd7+ Nxd7 21.Nf7+ Ke7 22.Qb3
(on 22.Qh1 Black can play 22...Rf8 and force perpetual check or play 22...exd4 +0.38/21) Qg2+ unclear
de Zeeuw Refutation number 5:
5.Bxf7 Ke7 6.Bb3 and now Qe8, which scores the best in the computer for Black,
is not looked at, other than to say that it might transpose back into the main line. 5...Kf8 is actually playable, but not
analyzed.
Note - this line is probably White's best response to the Traxler.
de Zeeuw Refutation number 6:
5.d4 d5 6.Bxd5 Nd4 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 (07-25-2007 7...Kf8 is another try here) 8.Bc4 b5
9.Be2 (de Zeeuw) Rybka scores this position as roughly +0.10. I just don't see 9.Be2 refuting the Traxler Gambit with a score
of +0.10.
07-25-2007 However, 9.Bd3! h6 10.Nf3 Ng4 11.Be3 gives white a slight advantage. Can Black improve in this line?
The analysis I post is believed accurate, but it seems clear that with such a large volume that some may
contain errors. Use the "Sign my guestbook" button on my home page and leave a comment if you think that a line needs
to be updated.
